We use cookies to ensure we give you the best experience on our website. You can find out about our cookies and how to disable cookies in our Privacy Policy. If you continue to use this website without disabling cookies, we will assume you are happy to receive them. Close.

The strategy called for '…a profound change in the relationship between public authorities and the construction industry to ensure the Government consistently gets a good deal and the country gets the social and economic infrastructure it needs for the long-term…'

The report stated an intention to achieve savings of '15 to 20%' by the end of the parliament (rather than 'up to 20%' as stated in the original strategy).

It found that £72 million of actual savings had been made in the first year, and projected savings of £279m (including the £72m achieved savings) in whole-life costs on a spend of £2.6bn in the main procuring departments. This was described as representing 10% projected savings, although clearly projected savings are not actual savings, and there could be disagreement about how such savings are calculated. It was also be argued that the savings that had been achieved were in part the result of the economic downturn rather than government policy.

The strategy was broadly welcomed, but there was some scepticism about whether the government would follow it through, and how the roll out of BIM would be implemented, along with some criticism that the increasing use of large, long-term contracts and framework agreements might act as a barrier to entry to new suppliers and so a barrier to innovation.

The size of the savings projected was also questioned given that the recession meant the industry was already at its least profitable and most productive since records began (ref Constructing Excellence and Glenigan: Industry performance report).

Despite a great number of reports about the construction industry, and numerous attempts to improve efficiency, the perception persists that the industry is wasteful and adversarial, it might be inferred therefore either that; under the circumstances the industry operates more effectively than it appears from the outside; expectations are unrealistic; or recommendations have been consistently poorly implemented.